Well... Here ya go, Blount Gets Reinstated

[GoPokes83]

By Pete Fiutak
CollegeFootballNews.com
Posted Nov 9, 2009


Oregon and the Pac 10 have reinstated RB LeGarrette Blount. He's allowed to play this week against Arizona State after making amends with the program.


By Pete Fiutak

A player who could start on several NFL teams right now embarrasses a university on a national scale, makes nice-nice, and he gets to play football again during a run for the Rose Bowl. Spin it however you want to, but Oregon proved that it’s just another big-time football program. Nothing more.

The Pac 10 approved the reinstatement of Oregon running back LeGarrette Blount, who famously was suspended for the year, originally, by Duck head coach Chip Kelly for punching Boise State’s Byron Hout after the 19-8 loss to the Broncos to start the season. Not helping the cause was Blount’s emotional tirade after the incident when he had to be restrained by teammates from going after a few heckling Boise State fans.

According to Pac 10 Commissioner, Larry Scott, Blount “paid a significant and appropriate price for the mistakes he made on the field,” and he went on to say in the statement that Blount “learned important life-long lessons.” Now he’s available to play against Arizona State.

If Blount was going to return at all this season the timing was never going to be quite right. If he was brought back before the USC game everyone would’ve said he was being thrown back into the mix to help win the biggest game the program has played in several years. If he came back after being suspended for the regular season, it would be argued that he’s returning to help win a bowl game. Of course, after the Ducks got blasted by Stanford last week, so the timing doesn’t work, even though he would’ve returned after a win, anyway. But it all doesn’t seem quite right, even though Oregon continues to try to do the right thing.

Kelly and the program handled the initial controversy perfectly. It wasn’t sidestepped, it wasn’t ignored, and it wasn’t treated with a first half benching against a Vanderbilt-like foe. By suspending Blount for the season, Oregon showed that the football program is a part of the university and not the be-all-end-all. If a major college football program is the most visible aspect of a school on a national scale, then it can’t have one of the images being one of its players punching an opponent and going berserk after a loss. Now the original punishment seems a bit hollow.

Blount wasn’t kicked out of school. He wasn’t denied a chance to get his education, which, of course, is supposed to be the overall goal of a college athlete, and he wasn’t denied the ability to work out and hang around with his friends on the team. He wasn’t allowed to play football for the University of Oregon, and the school and the program needed to stand firm even though Blount has said and done all the right things to make amends for his actions. This isn’t about forgiveness for past sins; this is about continuing to make the statement that the school originally made that football, as big as it might be, is just football. It’s a privilege to wear the uniform, or the several uniforms considering Oregon’s weekly change of garb, and that not releasing Blount from the scholarship was more than fair considering his actions.

Football programs aren’t rehab clinics, and it’s not the job of a football team to make a man out of a kid who makes mistakes. That’s the job of the parents. Blount isn’t a bad person, this isn’t a Lawrence Phillips situation, and he’s going to do everything right from here on, but that’s not the point. The University of Oregon had a chance to show that it’s bigger than its football team, and didn’t.

Blount is an NFL-caliber back who should be taken in the first three rounds of the 2010 Draft; it wasn’t like his football career was over if he didn’t get a chance to return for the finishing kick of Oregon’s run to the Rose Bowl. The Oregon offense was doing just fine, and with LaMichael James running well and Jeremiah Masoli working wonders with the high-powered attack, so for all practical purposes, the team didn’t desperately need Blount on the field. So it’s now going to be about Kelly and the school giving Blount another chance to be a part of the team. It’ll get spun positively in several different ways, Blount will be a model citizen and will tear it up on the field as part of the Oregon attack, and there will be several mea culpa stories and features to come out of this. But in the end, Oregon is treating its football program, and the honor of stepping on the field and representing the school, like it’s something bigger than it should be. LeGarrette Blount should be a student at the University of Oregon. That doesn’t mean he deserves to be a student-athlete.

[pistolpete2002]

Everyone knows assault and battery on another person deserves less punishment than and is less harmful than not telling the truth about something that is completely inconsequential.

[mankey522]

ok outrage is officially acceptable. So apparently i can punch a guy in the face on national tv. But if i lie about working out with a mentor, who might lead me to do good things and stay out of trouble, then im a bad person cant play in your stupid association. NCAA 2010 where assault is rewarded and fibbing kills your career.
I HATE THE NCAA!!! SCREW ANYTHING EVEN RELATED TO THEM!

[OSUFan]

I don't get what is so upseting. The two situations (Blount and Dez) are totally different. I hate to sound like CC but lying to the NCAA when the NCAA is investigating an incident is far worse than taking a swing at an opposing player on national tv. Was the NCAA involved in Blount's punishment? Sounds like to me it was Oregon and the Pac 10 who dealt out the punishment. If you want to get mad at someone, get mad at them for re-instating an athlete all in the name of winning when the athlete should be missing the rest of the season.

[GoPokes83]

Fan's right, but it does show that schools could care less about character, and much more about filling seats.

[pistolpete2002]

I agree with you OSUfan except for the lying is worse than taking a swing at a guy part.

IF, yes a big if, but what IF Blount would've caught the BSU guy in the temple, laid him out and killed him. YES, IT CAN HAPPEN!!!!! vs. Dez lying about something that didn't matter. Which would've been worse then?? Your are right when you say the 2 situations are totally different, but dead wrong when you say Dez's was worse. Blount could have hurt a lot of innocent people if he wouldn't have been restrained where Dez didn't physically hurt ANYONE and really out broke a stupid rule in place by a stupid organiztion.

This is for anyone. Would you rather be lied to about something that doesn't even matter or decked in the face by a 230lbs beast???? I know what I'd choose..... and you're a lier if you choose the 2nd option so that means your career should be ruined because of it...

[CaliforniaCowboy]

It's not a matter of which you would prefer Pete... it's a matter of which is more severe under NCAA penalty guidance.

One is a personal foul, one is ethical conduct.

If he hurt the guy badly then he would be in Jail for battery (or manslaughter) and his NCAA eligibiliey would not be in question.

It has to do with INTENT, to cheat, to gain advantage, etc. and not whether you would prefer pain and suffering over honesty and integrity.

[pistolpete2002]

I agree with you, CC, that it's not a matter of what I prefer, because if it was up to me, Dez would be playing and Blount wouldn't step on the field again for the kind of public outburst he had.

I was just saying that, to me, knocking a dude out and risking personal and/or permanent injury to a person on national TV and tarnishing an image of a program and what the NCAA stands for is FAR worse than lying behind closed doors about something that doesn't matter. Neither of the "crimes" committed, IMO, were done "with INTENT to cheat, to gain advantage, etc." And neither of the "crimes" committed contained punishments that fit the crime and there is a HUGE problem with that IMO.

Don't you think the NCAA should've step in and had some sort of punishment for a player knocking out another person and going bazerks on a crowd and needing a half a dozen people or so dragging him off the field to prevent further injuries to other innocent and unsuspecting people. Or are you fine with that because the NCAA doesn't have a rule for what Blount did, but they do have a rule for lying???

[CaliforniaCowboy]

One is a GAME violation of sportsmanship, that is handled by the Ref or the league; the other is ethical conduct affecting eligibility, which is governed by the NCAA.

As far as rules of the game go, the two situations are no even close in comparison.

[CaliforniaCowboy]

... it just occured to me.. I wonder if there is any correlation between:

1) Ncaa lying 3 times, penalty goes up
2) Three strikes you're out
3) Deny me thrice before the rooster crows.

[OSUFan]

I think marriage is a good analogy. What would your wife rather you do? Lie to her three times so she can't trust you anymore or get in a fight at a bar? She wouldn't want either but I bet she would prefer the latter.

[pistolpete2002]

We all know what the NCAA finds more offensive. I'm asking what everyone else thinks is more offensive....

[pistolpete2002]

I think marriage is a good analogy. What would your wife rather you do? Lie to her three times so she can't trust you anymore or get in a fight at a bar? She wouldn't want either but I bet she would prefer the latter.

Even if the lie was about something that didn't even matter. I would understand if it was something that would really break trust and if you lied about something that really mattered, but lying about something that doesn't make a difference at all and getting punished about it is ridiculous.

Wife: How many beers did you drink at the bar??
Husband: 4
Wife: are you sure you only had 4??
Husband: Yeah, I'm pretty sure.
Wife: Are you absolutely sure?
Husband: well... yeah..
Wife: Your buddy Deon said you had 5!!!!!
Husband: Well now that you mention it I did...

Wife: WELL YOU SHOULD HAVE TOLD ME THE FIRST TIME. SIGN THESE DIVORCE PAPERS!!!! WE'RE OVER!!!!!

So, do you think the punishment fits the crime???

[OSUFan]

I find hitting a player more offensive because it's aired all over the nation and reflects on the university as a whole. You don't see Dez lying. You just hear about the analysis of his punishment nationwide.

[OSUFan]

Even if the lie was about something that didn't even matter. I would understand if it was something that would really break trust and if you lied about something that really mattered, but lying about something that doesn't make a difference at all and getting punished about it is ridiculous.

Wife: How many beers did you drink at the bar??
Husband: 4
Wife: are you sure you only had 4??
Husband: Yeah, I'm pretty sure.
Wife: Are you absolutely sure?
Husband: well... yeah..
Wife: Your buddy Deon said you had 5!!!!!
Husband: Well now that you mention it I did...

Wife: WELL YOU SHOULD HAVE TOLD ME THE FIRST TIME. SIGN THESE DIVORCE PAPERS!!!! WE'RE OVER!!!!!

So, do you think the punishment fits the crime???

If your wife can't trust what you say anymore, it doesn't matter what you lied about. It's the fact that trust is lost.

[pistolpete2002]

If your wife can't trust what you say anymore, it doesn't matter what you lied about. It's the fact that trust is lost.


So you're honestly saying that if you told your wife you had 4 beers at the tailgate and she finds out you had 5 that you should get a divorce because you lied about something that doesn't even MATTER???


If that were to happen, the divorce rate would skyrocket and NOBODY would be married anymore.

[GoPokes83]

I'd rather he had a bad moment on the field and look like an idiot, than repeatedly lie and ruin his credibility permanently. Dishonestly matters, whether it's stealing or lying. Would it matter if he stole some shoes even though he already had some?

[OSUFan]

So you're honestly saying that if you told your wife you had 4 beers at the tailgate and she finds out you had 5 that you should get a divorce because you lied about something that doesn't even MATTER???


If that were to happen, the divorce rate would skyrocket and NOBODY would be married anymore.

You picked the example of drinking beers not me. I doubt your wife is going to ask how many beers you drank. A better example would be if you lied who you drank the beers with or you lied about where you were late at night. Remember there was suspicion on the NCAA's part about what Dez was doing and what took place. If your wife is suspicious about where you were and you continue to lie to her, you are going to lose her trust even if you didn't do anything wrong but lie to her about where you were.

A divorce might sound drastic to you after a few lies and losing her trust but if you cared about the marriage why would you be out drinking late and not telling your wife where you were? Same thing about Dez. If Dez was more interested in the team and staying eligible, sure seems like he would have listened to the coaches and stayed away from Deion and not lied to the NCAA about what happened.

[bleedorange]

I know I suddenly have a craving for a cold beer. :food-smiley-004:

[pistolpete2002]

You picked the example of drinking beers not me. I doubt your wife is going to ask how many beers you drank. A better example would be if you lied who you drank the beers with or you lied about where you were late at night. Remember there was suspicion on the NCAA's part about what Dez was doing and what took place. If your wife is suspicious about where you were and you continue to lie to her, you are going to lose her trust even if you didn't do anything wrong but lie to her about where you were.

A divorce might sound drastic to you after a few lies and losing her trust but if you cared about the marriage why would you be out drinking late and not telling your wife where you were? Same thing about Dez. If Dez was more interested in the team and staying eligible, sure seems like he would have listened to the coaches and stayed away from Deion and not lied to the NCAA about what happened.

I understand what you're saying, but Dez lied about something that was inconsequential (it would be like him lying about what his favorite color was, how many beers you drank, who you hung out with, etc.). He didn't do anything against the rules.

In your story, the husband is doing something wrong and lied about it.

[OSUFan]

Correct me if I am wrong but I thought the jogging with Deion was a minor violation along with being in the facility without paying.

[AnniePokely]

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p5/Real_AirCooledMan/deadhorse.jpg

[CaliforniaCowboy]

So you're honestly saying that if you told your wife you had 4 beers at the tailgate and she finds out you had 5 that you should get a divorce because you lied about something that doesn't even MATTER???

If that were to happen, the divorce rate would skyrocket and NOBODY would be married anymore.


You're twisting it again... we've already had this lying debate about white lies versus malice.

If she can't tell the difference between 4 or 5 beers, it really doesn't matter... the end result is the same, you're probably showing inebriation.

Try lying to her about the one thing that you were not suppose to do, but you did (like lipstick on the collar); which is far closer to the violation by Dez.

I don't advocate lying in any circumstance; but generally speaking ... how many beers? Wow.

[GoPokes83]

Lie to the IRS, or work in a bank and lie to the auditors , or lie to a judge in their courtroom about something "inconsequential" and see what happens to you.
The fact that he wasn't smart enough to realize he didn't need to lie is of absolutely no consequence.

I'm tired of the embarrassment he's caused us.

[pistolpete2002]

The NCAA isn't the IRS or a judge or your wife or a bank. They're a bunch of stiffs who make up punishments as they go and are more lenient on bigger programs. They really can't be compared to anything else.

[CaliforniaCowboy]

The NCAA isn't the IRS or a judge or your wife or a bank. They're a bunch of stiffs who make up punishments as they go and are more lenient on bigger programs. They really can't be compared to anything else.

I'm still waiting for somebody to back that position up with actual facts.

It's time for us to grow up as a fan base and take the higher road.



and IMHO, the NCAA is closer to the IRS, Courts, Bank, Wife than anything else... if you screw any of them up, you're going to find yourself in their doghouse.

[pistolpete2002]

if you screw any of them up, you're going to find yourself in their doghouse.


Now that, I agree with you on!!! :D

[bootytee]

I'm still waiting for somebody to back that position up with actual facts.

It's time for us to grow up as a fan base and take the higher road.


First of all, I think the higher road is standing up for what is right and not letting someone take advantage of you. I think that what has happened to Dez is not right. Obviously, it comes down to your perspective on the situation. Argue it all you want, you won't get a response from me, nor do you need one.

Secondly, you want facts?? Let's take Dez out of the equation to relieve any biases that we both might have. Let's compare the Spikes and Blount issue.

1. physical violence on the field vs. physical violence on the field
2. Florida= big time school vs. Oregon= not as big time
3. 1/2 game suspension vs. 8 game suspension

MAJOR discrepancies. I know you're argument about on the field actions, being handled internally by the school or the conference (not the NCAA), etc.

BUT, one of your big arguments is about the INTENT of gaining advantage. Don't you think that trying to blind someone is trying to gain an unfair advantage. Shouldn't the NCAA have stepped in on that?? Especially, since the incident occurred during one of their sanctioned events.

I don't know. Maybe I'm still way off base... maybe (I'm sure) I still don't know all of the facts. It just appears to me to be very inconsistent, subjective, incongruent, fishy, whatever you want to call it.

[GoPokes83]

If I remember correctly the ref's didn't call the eye gouging incident, the school caught it in the film room. And yes the school should have taken a much stronger stance on it and hit the kid with some major time out. But there's a major difference between Dez and that. The NCAA doesn't step in when someone gets a DUI, or steals something from Wal Mart. They leave that to the school. They do step in when they are investigating something and you try and do everything you can to derail that investigation. The NCAA did the right thing here.